An intellectual war of words has broken out between two of the world's leading evolutionists. Oxford University's Richard Dawkins and Harvard's Edward Wilson have gone head to head over the evolution of altruism in the animal kingdom, and whether it can have come about as a result of something called group selection.

The subject matter of their dispute is social insects, particularly ants, which display a supreme form of altruism in that sterile workers lay down their lives for the benefit of their fertile colleagues in the colony.

Conventional Darwinian theory could not really explain why one individual should sacrifice its own life, and its precious genes, for the benefit of another individual, unless it could be viewed in terms of group selection, when indi-viduals do it for the benefit of the colony or the species....

Ha! wrote:MikePlease don't give them ideas!They struggle to explain why despite this wonderful and mysterious organising principle latent in matter called "evolution" people are as bad as they are, when they are supposed to be getting better and better - The ascent of man and all that...And there you go giving them a plausible explanation which fits right in with their God forsaken beliefs!

But then they would indeed be contradicting their own theory, which is that evolution/natural selection improves the species. And they would have to see themselves as degenerating, which their massive egos would not allow them to do. They won't use my explanation, never fear.

Mike wrote:....The Darwinian, because of his stand, and if he were honest, would conclude that self sacrifice should lead to extinction, or at least a degeneration of the species. But of course he doesn't. Why is that?

Mike

Please don't give them ideas!

They struggle to explain why despite this wonderful and mysterious organising principle latent in matter called "evolution" people are as bad as they are, when they are supposed to be getting better and better - The ascent of man and all that...

And there you go giving them a plausible explanation which fits right in with their God forsaken beliefs!

" Conventional Darwinian theory could not really explain why oneindividual should sacrifice its own life, and its precious genes,for the benefit of another individual, unless it could be viewedin terms of group selection, when indi-viduals do it for the benefitof the colony or the species. "

This self-sacrifice is, of course, an act of superior behavior. One would then have to question how, in the Darwinian view, the destruction of these "precious genes" could increase the quality of the remaing "colony or the species." If the very quality of "precious genes" that benefits the species ceases to exist, it cannot be passed on. The more that these self sacrifices occur, the less are there that remain to be included in the gene pool. The Darwinian, because of his stand, and if he were honest, would conclude that self sacrifice should lead to extinction, or at least a degeneration of the species. But of course he doesn't. Why is that?

" Conventional Darwinian theory could not really explain why oneindividual should sacrifice its own life, and its precious genes,for the benefit of another individual, unless it could be viewedin terms of group selection, when indi-viduals do it for the benefitof the colony or the species. "

Isn't this rich? Whether they realize it or not, they're witnessinga miniature reflection of the gospel (John 15:13) within their owncreated universe (which even though it's fallen, is still full ofGod's glory--Isaiah 6:3)...and they're still trying to explain itaway as nothing more than some mechanistic biological process.

Reminds me of all those gay men trying to find Lot's door shortlyafter the angels blinded them back in Genisis 19.

"His 'group selection' terminology is misleading, and his distinction between 'kin selection' and 'individual direct selection' is empty."

Dawkins always seems to have that kind of tone when dealing with anyone who has any opinion different than his own. The attitude of "How silly they can't possibly be right because I am"

Of course, he believes he's at the top of the evolutionary tree that's mutated by chance for millions of years.

Me - I'm descended from an original designed human. It's true I have mutations over several hundred generations. But I'm more like a piece of designed machinery than an explosion in a factory causing a mechanical mess. I even have a kind of instruction manual for appropriate use.

So maybe I might have an opinion worthy of contradicting Dawkins'. That would be "My designer disagrees with your conclusion".